Sunday, December 31, 2006

According to Glenn Greenwald, Canada's most famous hobbit Mark Steyn is "one of those endlessly deceitful propagandists who have been lying for three straight years about what is happening in Iraq." Adam Daifallah would, of course, beg to differ.

On the other hand, of course, Reisman's "Jew-controlled" chain of bookstores are now the target of a tacky and appalling boycott, simply because of Reisman and her husband's financial support of members of the Israeli military, and the nerve of the those Jew-hating protestors, let me tell you.

It must be tough, being a member of Canada's wingnut community and knowing you might have to reconfigure your outrage on a moment's notice.

Look, I'm just as big a fan of pushing the semantic envelope as the next person but, come on:

HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get [Osama bin Laden]. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.

In other news, the Conservative Party of Canada only beats women because it loves them. Or something like that.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

AFTERSNARK: Perhaps the most jaw-dropping demonstration of utter classlessness in right-wing idiot pundit history is this piece by neo-con airhead Peggy Noonan who, while the grief was still fresh, decided to "channel" the recently-deceased Paul Wellstone in order to ridicule Democrats everywhere.

And to the question, "At last, Peggy, at long last, have you no sense of decency?", we can safely answer, no, not really.

SOME CONTEMPLATIVE AFTERSNARK: It's moderately amusing to watch the wankersphere stroke themselves blind over this latest (alleged) snub of Kerry by the troops. Recall, if you will, the words by Kerry that got this all started:

"Education, you know, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

As has been explained countless times since then, and acknowledged by even prominent Republicans, Kerry was not taking a shot at the intelligence at U.S. troops in Iraq; rather, he was clearly taking a whack at Commander Codpiece, and simply pooched the words and the joke.

That this is what happened is no longer even a point of debate. Members of the wankersphere who keep pushing this story have simply chosen (and I use the word "chosen" very deliberately) to mis-interpret what happened. But this latest bit of idiocy takes the silliness of Canada's wankersphere to new lows.

Appreciate, if you will, that what you have here is an entire population of wanks, high-fiving each other over an alleged snub of John Kerry by U.S. troops, allegedly in retaliation for an insult that was, from the very beginning, clearly a piece of total fiction. In short, said wanks are now congratulating one another over something that never happened which, according to them, is just what John Kerry deserves for something he never did.

The logical disconnect from reality here would be howlingly funny, if it weren't so sadly predictable.

Well, I tried to fight it but there's just too much wankery goodness to keep my little paws off the keyboard. The latest atrocity from the wankersphere involves the Conservative Party of Canada finally coming clean and admitting they broke the law during the last election.

But not to worry since, as Jason Cherniak explains, the admitted additional revenue of $1,453,625 is exactly offset by the magical discovery of (wait for it ... wait for it ... here it comes ...) $1,453,625 in "other" expenses. What a breathtaking coincidence. Some people just have all the luck, don't they? Of course, the fun only starts when you check out the reaction over at the Blogging Tories, as they try to decide just how to spin this.

Over at True North, Jason complains that "we'll never hear the end of this" and that "Liberals desperate for some material to use against the Conservatives won't be letting go of this any time soon." Which is, as we can all appreciate, totally, totally unfair since it's been, literally, days since the CPoC admitted to breaking the law. I mean, that whole scandal is so last Tuesday. Grow up and move on, fer Chrissake!

(Luckily, as Jason, points out, "accountability isn't a big issue right now for Canadians." Another stroke of good fortune, apparently.)

The Phantom Observer seems to have the same concern, suggesting that we should "expect this story to get some extended by-play in the media." But no fear, since PO is on top of the situation. You see, he has a plan:

Is this going to be played up? Oh, hell, yes. For one thing, the government isn’t really scheduled to do anything for the month of January; some policies will come into place, but financial irregularities tend to be a lot sexier in terms of amplification into scandal. And for another, look who’s got the file on this for the Liberals: the conspiracy maniac, Mark Holland:

See, that's step one -- paint the critics as mentally-unhinged, conspiracy theorists. It's always good to start with a snappy ad hominem.

So a slow news period plus a hyperactive MP with lots of media access equals trouble in the New Year.

Ah, yes, and he's hyperactive, too. Nice touch. But here's the best part of the strategy:

Second, if this is to float, then the one word Holland needs to avoid is “corruption.” Once he uses that, Baird will have the ammunition to smack the issue down as hypocrisy, and hypocrisy won’t float very well where the Liberals are concerned.

Yes, by God, that's the ticket, because since the Liberals were caught wallowing in their own little cesspool of corruption once upon a time, this naturally means that the Conservatives should receive a free pass from any similar criticism from now until the heat death of the universe. Otherwise, the Liberals are hypocrites. See how that works?

But perhaps the most entertaining disconnect from reality comes from Dante over at "Uncommon Truths" (which has to be the frontrunner for most hilariously-misnamed blog on the planet). Dante, who apparently didn't get the memo from CPoC HQ, dismisses all of this as a "non-story", then writes:

So, the moral of the story is that the Conservatives are bad because they paid the money back?

Oooooookay ... I'm thinking Dante might have missed the part of this story that had to do with $1.5 million in undisclosed donations. I could eviscerate the rest of Dante's idiocy but, seriously, that would be just cruel. And I'm trying to turn over a new leaf.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

A few minutes ago, I posted an update to the Jamil Hussein story. My source just informed me that he had incorrect information. I'm removing the post. I'll update as soon as I know more.

Not surprisingly, you will not find the phrases "sorry" or "apology" or "ghastly, mind-numbing, irresponsible, premature eJankulation-style fuck-up" anywhere in the above. But that's not all.

Curiously, you won't find hyperlinks to any of Michelle's earlier Jamil Hussein-related pieces, so that if someone stumbles on that post of Michelle's, they'll have no idea what the fuck she's talking about. Which, I'm guessing, is exactly the effect she was looking for.

P.S. Note carefully how Michelle, like the gutless, neo-con hack that she is, didn't just post a correction -- she removed the original, idiotic post. Now there's a profile in wankitude.

Halls of Macadamia gives a big "We're Number One!" shout out over those cowardly Islamojihadafarians, in the same way that someone named Bert in Section Z17 celebrates the victory of his favourite team by waving a huge foam "We rock!" hand and screaming "We're number one!" That's right, Bert, and they couldn't have done it without you.

Over at True North, Jason seems determined that Canada's neo-cons be the ones to define Stephane Dion's image. Good idea, Jason, although I'd probably avoid trying to portray him as a petulant, childish whiner who's too arrogant to have a mature dialogue with the very people he's supposed to represent. I think that image has been taken.

Backseat Blogger can't understand what all the fuss is about, claiming that he had no idea the phrase "spear-chucker" had a racist history. Tune in tomorrow when BB uses the phrase "jungle bunny," then can't figure out why he's getting some seriously dirty looks.

And let's give the last word to Adam Daifallah who, while having nothing of any value to say, still manages to indulge in his inevitable right-wing, puppy love hero worship, praising Time for its moronic choice of "Person of the Year" and managing to squeeze the phrases "remarkable" and "Stephen Harper" into the same sentence.

And, bonus, seems that Maclean’s mag was so enthralled as they scanned my past columns that they are going to publish a whole page of my lighthearted quotes on a host of topics.

Now I don’t want to get in trouble from the ethics comish so I can’t actually encourage you to engage in what could appear as a ‘kickback’ scheme by advising you to buy Maclean’s.

But I will admit that I plan to sneak out under the darkness of night and scour the alleyways for a used copy so I can see which juicy items they chose to cut and paste.

As I read this, Maclean's is soon going to publish ... what? A collection of potentially embarrassing quotes from Day? It sure seems that way since Day has already taken a defensive posture, referring to "lighthearted quotes." As in, he was just funnin', it was all just a joke, that sort of thing. And why does this sound familiar?

Coulter told the Philander Smith College audience that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. Stevens is one of the court’s more liberal members.

“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee,” Coulter said. “That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”

Yes, it's the "Ann Coulter defense," in which anything you say, no matter how tactless, classless, graceless or downright dumbfuck, can always be breezily dismissed as humour.

WHOOPS, HOW DID I MISS THAT? Note also how Day describes the upcoming Maclean's snippets as "which juicy items they chose to cut and paste." Yes, you can almost smell the "out of context" accusations from here, can't you?

Friday, December 22, 2006

CULTURAL AFTERTHOUGHT: It's interesting to see those down-home country folk like Kate McMillan get their thongs all bunched up over what they interpret as a nasty bit of anti-rural discrimination since, truth be told, those same folks are just as capable of some amusing bigotry going the other way.

I've been a stern critic of the Bush administration, but this is one case where Democrats in the Senate were the lead villains. To its credit, the administration initially opposed an increase in farm subsidies, though as in the case of steel protection, it didn't take long before political calculation trumped the administration's alleged principles. But politics aside, maybe the farm bill debacle will help us, finally, to free ourselves from a damaging national myth: that the "heartland," consisting of the central, relatively rural states, is morally superior to the rest of the country.

You've heard the story many times: the denizens of the heartland, we're told, are rugged, self-reliant, committed to family; the inhabitants of the coast are whining yuppies. Indeed, George W. Bush has declared that he visits his stage set — er, ranch — in Crawford to "stay in touch with real Americans." (And what are those of us who live in New Jersey — chopped liver?)

And isn't that fascinating? It's outrageous to suggest that Western Canadians might be a bunch of straw-chewing, Hee Haw-watching, Scripture-spouting, knuckle-dragging rubes. On the other hand, those same yokels never seem to have a problem thinking of the rest of us as a pack of whiny, latte-sipping, Seinfeld-watching pansies.

Perhaps the best indication of the sorry state of journalism these days is the acceptance of what have come to be the new rules of press conferences. As one example, over the last several years (and totally inexplicably), reporters have simply accepted that they aren't allowed to ask "hypothetical" questions anymore.

When cornered with a particularly incisive "what if", politicians simply brush it off with, "Well, that's a hypothetical and I don't do hypotheticals," and the journalist is either too spineless or too dense to respond with, "Well, why the fuck not?" The politicians invented this sleazy little dodge out of thin air, and reporters have bought into it hook, line and sinker, to their everlasting shame. But there's a new kid in town.

Apparently, when you're cornered with an embarrassing political history and are asked to explain it, the new out is to simply suggest that people "look at your record," as if that somehow constitutes an answer:

Governor Mitt Romney defended his conservative bona fides yesterday before an audience of skeptics and supporters curious about his rightward shift on several hot-button social issues as he readies for a run for president...

Yesterday, after speaking to an audience of about 150 people, Romney defended his record as governor to reporters.

"The proof is in the pudding," he said. "People will have a chance to look at my record as governor of Massachusetts and see what I've done there. Talk is cheap, but action is not."

Not surprisingly, this bit of weaselitude doesn't even remotely constitute a meaningful response, since it's usually presented as a reply to someone who just finished describing someone's "record" in painful and horrifying detail, and is now asking to have it explained.

In short, in almost all cases, the proper snappy comeback to "You should look at my record" would be, "Dude, I did look at your record, and I've just summarized it for you, and now I want you to defend it. So stop being such a gutless little weasel and let's hear it."

Sadly, that ain't gonna happen anymore. You can't ask hypotheticals, and you can't talk about records without being told to go away look at them again.

Courtesy of Liberal Catnip, we learn that right-wing blowhard and attack poodle Joe Scarborough has finally found the courage to join the reality-based community.

That's nice, Joe, but don't expect any invitations to the liberal Christmas bash, 'cuz you have a hell of a lot of making up to do, after crap like this:

Right wing mouth Joe Scarborough, who believes there really is a geographical place in the world called "Scarborough Country," declared Danny Glover was "un-American" for speaking against Bushian policies. To make America whole again, Scarborough posted the phone number for MCI and told his MSNBC viewers to call the telephone giant to dump Glover as a spokesperson.

On Scarborough Country on June 29, host and former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL) extended his attacks on author/documentarian Michael Moore and his new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, to Democrats -- including Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Scarborough stated, "I think any Democrat who embraces this man's [Moore's] hateful message is not fit to lead America"; he then challenged Kerry "to separate himself from the [Moore's] politics of hate." Scarborough announced he will be sending "every congressman and every senator on Capitol Hill a questionnaire ... asking, do you agree with Michael Moore's vision of America or not?" and "report[ing] it [the responses] to the American people."

Thanks for the recent support, Joe. Nice to see you've finally come around. Now fuck off.

The debate over sending more U.S. troops to Iraq intensified Wednesday as President Bush signaled that he will listen but not necessarily defer to balky military officers, and Army Gen. John Abizaid, his top Middle East commander and a leading skeptic of a so-called surge, announced his retirement.

At an end-of-the-year news conference, Bush said he agrees with generals "that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished" before he decides to dispatch an additional 15,000 to 30,000 troops to the war zone. But he declined to repeat his usual formulation that he will heed his commanders on the ground when it comes to troop levels.

As a followup to an earlier post, it's amusing to see how many of the citizens of Wingnuttia, while railing on tediously about the irrevocable, God-given sanctity of human life, also think that a lot of the world's problems could be solved with the proper application of a well-aimed bullet, or something to that effect.

The latest poster child for right-wing compassion would be, of course, this lunatic, but she's merely the latest in a long line of conservative homicidal maniacs.

Amusingly, with all this right-wing death-mongering going on, it's those of us on the Left who, just because we think George W. Bush is an insufferable, arrogant jackass, are unhinged moonbats who suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

If the irony were any thicker, I could slice off a hunk and beat you with it. But not to death. That would be cruel.

Ooooooh, I don't like the look of this. Down south, more and more Dems are coming out strongly opposed to this whole new "Iraq surge" idea, but what they don't seem to understand is how this might come back to bite them in the ass in a big way.

Let's first establish a given: Iraq is fucked. Irreparably. At this point, there's nothing that suggests it can be "fixed" in any meaningful way, and therein lies the trap.

If the Bush administration promotes the "final surge" idea, and the Dems stop it from happening, then after Iraq implodes, the Repubs can come back and say, "Hey, we were almost there, we had it in the bag, and those traitorous, obstructionist Democrats cowardly bailed and messed things up."

That's what would happen. Guaranteed. It wouldn't matter if Iraq was going to implode anyway. If the Dems interfere with the process in any way, it will end up being their fault. So what to do?

Simple. The Dems have to take a deep breath and give the Bush administration free rein for the next two years to see this fiasco through to the end. It sounds harsh but, for purely political reasons, the Dems have to protect themselves in every way so that everyone can see it was the GOP who screwed this pooch.

OK, maybe that's a bit extreme. The Dems can certainly start launching subpoenas in every direction, digging into things like fraud, waste, mismanagement and war profiteering with respect to Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck but, when it comes to actual military strategy, the Dems should make it clear that they're going to give Commander Codpiece all the leeway he wants to botch this thing totally.

30,000 more troops to Iraq? Sure, why the hell not? Go wild. Think of it as "tough love," in which the U.S. will finally and truly get to see what happens when you leave imbeciles like this in charge. And just in time for the 2008 elections. How convenient.

Yes, I realize the Dems want to do the right thing. But given that the wingnuts down there play as dirty as possible, the Dems' first priority should be to protect their backs, and the only way to do that is to keep giving George W. Dumbass as much rope as he wants to hang himself thoroughly.

The Dems will just have to hope there's enough of a country left to salvage come 2008.UPPITY DATE: While I appreciate my commenters' dissension on this issue, and that it's silly to play political games while people are dying, I'm still firmly convinced that Job One for the Dems is to hang this albatross firmly around George Bush's neck.

Remember, the dust had barely settled from the midterm elections before the GOP bottom-dwellers were crawling out from under their rocks (mixing my metaphors badly) and trying to spread the blame equally.

Whatever happens, the Dems have to make sure that it's Admiral Dumbass McFlightsuit that owns this debacle. And if they can make sure he owns it right up to the 2008 election, so much the better.

Apparently, my new manly, he-man fragrance, "Eau de Troll," has them coming out of the woodwork.

Back here in the comments section, one "Jordan Alcock" (and I'm hoping that's his real name and not, you know, his nom de porno, like "Biggus Dickus" or something) has his Zima drinking buddies in absolute stitches with the savage smackdown, "Thinking maybe Canadian Cynic could use some time in a Canadian Clinic..."

Whoo hoo, that's a definite keeper, fer shure. Apparently, getting two words to rhyme is what passes for intellectual achievement on the other side of the ideological aisle. Nicely done, Jordan. Keep practising -- it gets easier as the years go by.

And then there's "Albertaman" back here, who has clearly been released from his cage over at SDA to run wild in the leash-free park and uses the time to sniff a few crotches and leave some right-wing snark in tightly-coiled piles on the grass, such as:

Canadian Cynic, I just thought I would check your site out after a commenters [sic] remarks on SDA. Your site is as pathetic as one would expect. Notice that SDA is so well know [sic] we don't even have to spell it in full. Drives you nuts doesn't it. You should be happy even with my comments because it double [sic] your comment total on your whole site.

After which Kate dutifully picked up the leavings in a small plastic bag and it was back into the car with Albertaman and the rest of the SDA attack puppies.

Next week, Kate takes the entire yapping pack to grammar class, where they will all learn the difference between singular and plural, and the possessive form.

BY THE WAY, "Albertaman" takes great pride in pointing out that, at least this side of the border, the acronym "SDA" needs no explanation. Yes, I'm sure that's true, in the same way that "KKK" needs no explanation anywhere on the planet.

Think about it, Albertaman ... the analogy will come to you. It might just take a while.

Fire struck Tuesday morning at the Saskatoon building that's home to Canada's largest agricultural newspaper, the Western Producer.

Staff with the weekly farm tabloid and at PrintWest Communications, where the fire started, were evacuated from the building.

"A few of us grabbed a few things … and went outside for the few minutes it usually takes to get the drill over with, except this time there was a fire," said reporter Michael Raine, who was left standing outside with a camera but no jacket.

No one was hurt.

Oh.

Well, I guess that's just a real knee-slapper for Kate and her adoring clutch of mouth-breathers. Of course, if that had happened at, say, The Western Standard and one of us lefties had made sport of it, well, you just know that the outrage would have been overwhelming, and how dare we find entertainment in the misfortune of others and blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda. You all know the drill by now, don't you?

And remember -- no one hates like the Angry Left. It's the phrase that pays.

And with an absolute plethora of worthy candidates to choose from, your 2006 Weblog Award for "Best Canadian Blog" goes to ... Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck.

Of course, this is the same award-granting group of misfits who bestowed the "Best Diarist" award of the year on a blog which reads:

DEAR EVERYONE FIL JUST SUCCESSFULLY RETURNED THE BBQ AND ALL THAT OTHER JUNK WHILE I SAT IN THE CAR WRINGING MY RISTS AND NOW I FEEL LIKE I JUST WON 180 DOLLARS AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN DICK HIM OVER RE: THE NON-RECEIPT OF THE LIGHTER FLUID I AM GOING TO CELEBRATE AND BUY US MOVIE TICKETS AND PAY FOR DINNER I FEEL LIKE 180 DOLLARS THAT WILL NEVER RUN OUT OR THAT 20 DOLLARS BART AND MILLHOUSE FIND AND THEY EAT CANDY ALL DAY LONG BYE.

So one might wonder what she thinks about the following where, first, TBogg points out how convicted felon and right-wing mouthpiece Oliver North claims that things are just fucking peachy over in Iraq, yessir, no problems here, shortly after which the selfsame TBogg points out how that very same Oliver North had his female marine escort blown to pieces by a roadside bomb only moments after leaving his side.

But no problems, right, Kate? Just another dead soldier, but let's not let that spoil the good news. 'Cuz that would be such a downer.

SOME INTERESTING SPIN HAPPENING HERE: The E&P article describing this incident takes care to point out, at the bottom, that North did admit to the death, but with a curious choice of words.

The E&P article begins (emphasis added)

Marine Maj. Megan McClung, a public affairs officer who became the highest-ranking woman killed in Iraq when she died two weeks ago, had been escorting Oliver North and a FOX News crew through Ramadi just moments before a roadside bomb took her life, a military spokesman told E&P on Monday.

And yet, at the bottom, we read (again, emphasis added):

UPDATE: Michael Fumento at his blog fumento.com, points out that North wrote about the major's death in a Dec. 8 syndicated column, not identifying her at the time as news had not yet come out. North wrote:"A proffered hot cup of coffee was gratefully accepted as the Major helped us load our backpacks, camera gear and satellite broadcast equipment aboard a dust-encrusted Humvee. Just hours later, this widely respected and much admired Marine officer and two brave U.S. Army soldiers were dead, killed by an IED -- an improvised explosive device -- the insidious weapon of choice for terrorists in Iraq."

"Hours later?" That's an odd time discrepancy but, if you think about it, it makes sense because, if you want to paint a picture of a rosy Iraq, you might be prepared to admit that a Marine Major was killed, but it could be a wee bit embarrassing to admit that it happened almost right in front of you. Better to detach yourself from the proceedings by a few hours. It reads better that way.

NEW YORK Has the mysterious and much-disputed Associated Press source in Iraq, a police captain named Jamil Hussein -- finally been found? His existence has been challenged in the past three weeks from the U.S. military, some Iraqi officials and conservative bloggers in the U.S.

A blogger named Marc Danziger who has followed the debate claimed late Saturday that he believes he has positively identified the captain at the Yarmouk police station, just as the AP had claimed, ...

Well, golly gee, the AP might have been right after all. So why was this so difficult? Ah, here we go:

... although (if this checks out) his first name may be spelled Jamail, not Jamil.

One can almost imagine the entire wankersphere in full howl on the hunt for the elusive Capt. Hussein, screaming, "No, it's 'Jamil,' not 'Jamail,' and I don't care if you have a Captain 'Jamail' Hussein, that can't be the same guy although, Jesus Christ, they all do look alike, don't they?"

AFTERSNARK: Given that Kate got such mileage out of the "Jamil Hussein" story here and here and here and here and here, one might think she owes her readers at least a smidgen of balanced reporting at this point.

Before any decision to increase troops, {Powell] said, "I'd want to have a clear understanding of what it is they're going for, how long they're going for. And let's be clear about something else. . . . There really are no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there, there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops."

He added: "That's how you surge. And that surge cannot be sustained."

The "active Army is about broken," Powell said.

Translation: The American military in Iraq is in its last throes, and they're about to try one final desperate "surge" to try to fix things.Plus ca change and all that.

Sunday, December 17, 2006

And just when you thought Time magazine couldn't get any more right-wing, neo-con, butt-kissing irrelevant, along comes their 2006 "Person of the Year" award.

Given that their own online survey had Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez running away with the public voting at 35%, followed by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at 21%, Nancy Pelosi at 12%, the YouTube guys at 11% and George W. Bush doing no better than being tied with Al Gore at 8%, Time takes a courageous stand and gives the award to ... you.

That's right -- you. Because giving it to any of the survey leaders would have caused freepers' heads to explode all across the land.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

I take issue with your comment in the National Post today regarding Conservative Bloggers whom you say mostly could not recite the national anthem without help. I'm not sure why you make such a widely disparaging comment towards those who are proudly, and often loudly, patriotic on the whole.

Earl, guess what: that stuff in Deuteronomy? That's in the Old Testament. Therefore everything in it comes under two categories: the time bound and the eternal. There is stuff in it that applies to us always. Then there is stuff that was intended for the Jews 5,000 years ago when they were in various states of disarray and sinfulness. Jesus brought the New Dispensation.

And that's how one weasels out of the undeniably batshit-crazy idiocy in the Old Testament -- just claim that some of it (the batshit crazy stuff, I'm guessing) doesn't apply anymore.

Sadly, Kathy's lord and saviour already has an opinion on the subject (emphasis added):

Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Given that John McCain is almost certainly going to take another shot at the U.S. presidency in 2008, it's getting increasingly tiring to hear him perpetually described as a "moderate" rather than the right-wing, psychotic lunatic that he is.

His latest foray into WingNutLand is described here, wherein McCain wants to treat blogs like Internet Service Providers and be able to whack them with massive fines for posting illegal images or videos, even if such things are posted only in a comments section by anonymous commenters.

Apparently, "The Decider" has decided that he's not ready to do any new decidin' just yet:

The White House said Tuesday that President Bush would delay presenting any new strategy for Iraq until early next year, as officials suggested that Mr. Bush’s advisers were locked in internal debates on several fronts about how to proceed.

which brings us to my latest utterly tasteless addition to the lexicon. (You haven't forgotten "Premature eJankulator" already, have you?)

While a period of six months has now been officially enshrined as a "Friedman unit," sometimes things happen more quickly and measuring in terms of Friedman units isn't appropriate.

Therefore, given that the daily casualty rate for U.S. troops is somewhere around three a day, we can now refer to a 24-hour period as "three dead soldiers." Which means that Commander Codpiece isn't quite ready to make any big decisions for another, oh, 50 dead soldiers or so. Maybe more, depending on how things go between now and then.

No, no, don't thank me. The joy of debasing the public discourse is what I live for.

Federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice was expected to introduce changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act as early as Wednesday that will give aboriginal people the right to challenge federal legislation governing First Nations.

Prentice said aboriginal people in Canada should have the right to launch complaints about the Indian Act, but currently cannot do so under the Canadian Human Rights Act, because of a specific section in the law that exempts the Indian Act.

Prentice said a proposed bill, which he plans to introduce, will provide that right.

At least one aboriginal leader, however, said she does not understand why the federal government wants to change the law now.

"Our people are fully capable of dealing with these matters themselves," said Katherine Whitecloud, a regional chief of Manitoba.

Apparently, then, Prentice and the CPoC are now terribly, terribly concerned about the rights of women, even when people are telling them to butt out.

For some reason, I keep getting this image of a rabbit and a brier patch.

Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States is resigning after only 15 months on the job, possibly to take a more senior foreign policy post in the oil-rich kingdom.

Well, OK, I guess that's possible but one wonders if there's more here than meets the ... whoa, hang on ...

Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

Asked for clarification in the Commons on Tuesday, [Rona] Ambrose said no money is owed under the climate treaty.

"I can confirm again what I said at committee that was accurate," Ambrose said.

"Canada has met all of our obligations. All of our mandatory obligations under the Kyoto protocol were paid up in full. I have the United Nations document here to prove it if the Speaker would like me to table it."

“I have in front of me a list of at least $100 million of money that was used to purchase international credits,” Ambrose said in what appeared to be a prepared response to a fellow Conservative MP’s question.

She then recited a number of overseas projects and their dollar values.

“For 13 years … this was the only plan, to buy international credits,” Ambrose told the committee.

However, when Sun Media initially asked for the project list cited by the minister, the story began to change.

I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department. . . .

Dear Rona: If I were you, I'd be looking for a better role model. Seriously.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

AUGUSTO PINOCHET, who died Sunday at the age of 91, has been vilified for three decades in and outside of Chile, the South American country he ruled for 17 years...

It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America...

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum...

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

Similarly, Adolf Hitler may have had that spot of unpleasantness with the Jews but, by gosh, he made sure the trains ran on time, didn't he?

Just 21 percent approve of President Bush's handling of the war, the lowest number he's ever received, and an 8-point drop from just a month ago. Most of that drop has been among Republicans and conservatives. Three-quarters of Americans disapprove of how the president is handling Iraq.

See? Not all Americans are ignorant, dumbass, war-mongering motherfuckers. Just 21% of them.

Over here, Idealistic Pragmatist has some excellent advice on how the specific class of Liberal-NDP swing voters should vote strategically in order to give the Conservative Party of Canada a swift boot to the family jewels. In a nutshell, she suggests that, all things being equal, that class of swing voters should vote for whichever of the Liberal or NDP candidate stands a better chance of winning.

While I agree with most of IP's prose, I would add one important qualifier: that Liberal or NDP candidate who's more likely to win should get the progressive vote, unless that candidate is acting like a dumbass conservative.

Case in point: the recent national vote on same-sex marriage, during which (despite that vote being an utter waste of time and doomed to failure) 13 Liberals actually voted to re-open the debate. From a progressive point of view, every one of those 13 Liberals should be political roadkill come the next election, regardless of whether they represent the better bet to defeat the Conservative candidate.

Could this backfire and let the Conservative sneak up the middle? Of course. But there comes a point when progressives should be getting really freakin' tired of strategically having to support Liberal candidates who act like right-wing wankers.

In cases like that, I think it's incumbent on progressives to send a message -- there's a limit to our patience and accommodation. If closet conservatives are caught hanging out in the Liberal party, they should be outed and punished, even if it means some short-term pain.

It's time to do some Liberal Party of Canada ideological cleansing. And those 13 wanks mentioned above would be just the place to start.

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Commenter "rabbit" seems appalled by the idea of allowing a "free" vote, then canning people who don't vote the "right" way. Au contraire, this is exactly the way the idiots should be weeded out.

By way of analogy, let's say I was the head of a science teachers association, and we were holding a vote as to whether to replace the teaching of biological evolution with strict young-earth creationism. Being the democratic kinda guy that I am, I might allow a free vote on the subject, but what happens if someone actually votes for that kind of replacement?

First, we can conclude that that person is at least one level worth of stupid, if they take creationism seriously. And that level of stupid alone would be enough to get their sorry asses kicked out of an organization dedicated to science education. But that's not all.

Even worse, they're an extra level of stupid for not understanding that voting the way they did would have obvious consequences. I mean, how dense do you have to be to not only be a scientific illiterate, but to further advertise that fact in the midst of an association of science teachers?

I think free votes are terrific, since they give people the opportunity to show just what kind of lunatic wingnuts they really are. And then the culling can begin.

Jason, fresh off his sputtering outrage over how Jews hate Christmas, gets his Fruit of the Looms all twisty over how Stephane Dion plans to simply appoint people to ridings. Um ... Jason? You're a CPoC supporter. Are you sure this is something with which you want to take issue? Just asking.

The excitable gang over at The He-Man Woman Hater's Club introduces their newest little rascal Kelly T Konechny, who does to political discourse what Peter MacKay does to gender relations with such delightful literary gems as "he [sic] internal threshold has been breached" and "The nation [sic] debate blew by him like a gentle summer breeze ..."

Yes, it'll be painful but, admit it, it will be like a multi-tricycle pile up. You'll still read just for the entertainment value.

"Conservative Life" explains how only liberals are "divisive," while being rabidly homophobic and misogynistic is simply good social dynamics. Or something.

Adam Daifallah's misty-eyed hero worship knows no bounds, as he prostrates himself at the altar of the late Jeane Kirkpatrick and her loyal admirers. Somewhere, Mark Steyn is feeling slightly jilted.

In a tearful videotaped message Sunday to his congregation, the senior pastor of a thriving evangelical megachurch in south metro Denver confessed to sexual relations with other men and announced he had voluntarily resigned his pulpit.

A month ago, the Rev. Paul Barnes of Grace Chapel in Douglas County preached to his 2,100-member congregation about integrity and grace in the aftermath of the Ted Haggard drugs-and-gay-sex scandal.

Now, the 54-year-old Barnes joins Haggard as a fallen evangelical minister who preached that homosexuality was a sin but grappled with a hidden life.

Don't worry, Paul -- Jesus will forgive you. I mean, come on -- we're talking about someone who hung around with 12 guys in loose-fitting robes. What's not to forgive?

Oh, dear. It seems like that whole Iraqi "democracy" thing is overrated:

Major partners in Iraq's governing coalition are in behind-the-scenes talks to oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki amid discontent over his failure to quell raging violence, according to lawmakers involved.

The talks are aimed at forming a new parliamentary bloc that would seek to replace the current government and that would likely exclude supporters of the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a vehement opponent of the U.S. military presence.

The new alliance would be led by senior Shiite politician Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who met with President Bush last week.

Oh, well. Purple fingers are so ... so ... last year, don't you think?

SORRY, HOW'S THAT AGAIN? Ummmmmm ... given the above, I'm not quite sure what to make of this:

President Bush on Monday opened three days of intensive consultations on Iraq, saying the United States and countries across the Middle East have a vital stake in helping the fragile government in Baghdad succeed.

I'm guessing this is a definition of "help" with which I am thoroughly unfamiliar.

There is a damper on Christmas cheer at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport: A rabbi's complaint led to the removal this weekend of synthetic Christmas trees that have decorated the entrances every holiday season for the last 25 years.

That grinding sound you hear is the wingnuts' brains, trying to figure out how this is all the fault of the atheist, liberal media.

YOU COULD SEE THIS COMING, as "Jason" is the first Blogging Tory to take umbrage while very carefully avoiding blaming the actual person responsible.

KITCHENER, Ont. (CP) - Ottawa is setting its sights on drivers who are high on drugs when they get behind the wheel, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday as he announced legislation to give police powerful new tools in their search for impaired motorists.

Canadian society needs to take the threat posed by those who drive under the influence of drugs as seriously as the one posed by drinking and driving, Harper told a news conference in Kitchener, Ont., an hour's drive west of Toronto.

"Just as governments once took action on drunk driving, we must act today to make drug-impaired driving just as socially unacceptable," he said, flanked on stage by beaming members of the lobby group Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada.

People who donate to Mothers Against Drunk Driving are told by the charity that most of the $12 million it raises annually is spent on good works — stopping drunk driving and helping families traumatized by fatal crashes.

But a Star investigation reveals most of the high-profile charity's money is spent on fundraising and administration, leaving only about 19 cents of each donor dollar for charitable works.

Apparently, the folks at MADD have a bad habit of questionable semantics:

Charity in Canada is regulated by the Canada Revenue Agency's Charities Directorate, run by director-general Elizabeth Tromp.

This week, the Star told Tromp that MADD was counting the work of professional fundraisers as charity. Tromp is not allowed to comment on individual charities but she said the practice is definitely not allowed. "When a professional fundraiser has been retained, it can reasonably be inferred that the intent of the expenditure is fundraising."

MADD's Murie said the regulator gave him permission to count the expenses as charity.

"We view these millions of one-on-one personal contacts with the public to be vital to our mission. It ensures that individual members of the Canadian public are informed about the seriousness of impaired driving," Murie said in a written statement to the Star. He said this is approved by the federal regulator and is practised by many other charities.

Tromp said the regulator has never condoned this approach.

Not that any of this should come as any surprise to people who, you know, have a clue:

MADD’s seemingly insatiable search for funding has also drawn criticism from charity watchdogs. In 1994, Money magazine reported that telemarketers raised over $38 million for MADD, keeping nearly half of it in fees. In that same year, the group spent more than $2 million on travel and conventions. Compare that to MADD’s paltry lobbying budget (a four-year total of only $636,000 from 1991 to 1994), and it’s not hard to see why the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) consistently gives MADD poor grades for its high bureaucratic costs. Indeed, MADD funnels about 50 cents of every dollar back to its fund-raising efforts, which is about one and a half times what AIP considers acceptable.

So, given the Blogging Tories incessant braying about fiscal responsibility and the like, I'm sure we can expect them to take MADD out to the woodshed for a sound thrashing any day now. Yessir, any day now ...

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Hey, kids ... you remember the hysterical breast-beating over the necessity of a Canadian "Defence of Religion" Act, don't you? You know ... the shrieking hyper-ventilation that came from folks like SUZANNE that you can read in the comments section here:

It's clear from the cases of Scott Brockie, Chris Kempling, the Knights of Columbus who were penalized for not renting their hall to "married" lesbians, WE ARE NOT PROTECTED...

We are forced to act against our religious beliefs by the State...

Catholics can lose their jobs for their religious beliefs. It's as SIMPLE as that. You want a Catholic to lose his job for stating homosexual behaviour is wrong?

We are not protected, and there are plenty of cases to show this.

Christians are becoming ghettoized. We won't be allowed to be justices of the Peace, teachers, psychologists, doctors (because we don't deal with abortions) and a whole host of other professions. Because of our religious beliefs.

What's next down the road?

We definitively need protection.

Man, it's gotta hurt when Stevie Boy himself steps on those folks hard:

Nor does [Harper] intend to introduce a "defence of religions" act to allow public officials, such as justices of the peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

"If there ever were a time in the future where fundamental freedoms were threatened, of course the government would respond to protect them," said the Prime Minister, who voted for the motion. "The government has no plans at this time."

Did you catch that, SUZANNE? Even Harpo implicitly admits that there is currently no fundamental threat to religious freedom. So howzabout putting a sock in it for a change? That's a good little wingnut.

If I were you, I wouldn't be assuming that the same-sex marriage issue in Canada is totally dead. From the Grope and Flail:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declared the contentious issue of same-sex marriage to be permanently closed.

After a Conservative motion calling on the government to restore the traditional definition of marriage was defeated yesterday by a resounding 175 to 123, Mr. Harper said he will not bring the matter back before Parliament.

"I don't see reopening this question in the future," he told reporters who asked whether same-sex marriage would return to the table if the Conservatives won a majority government.Nor does he intend to introduce a "defence of religions" act to allow public officials, such as justices of the peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

"Don't see?" Doesn't "intend?" Sorry, but those are disturbingly weaselly choices of words and, as we've seen before, the Cons aren't particularly known for keeping their promises.

White House advisers say Bush won't react in detail to the ISG report for several weeks, while he assesses it and awaits various internal government reports on the situation from his own advisers. Bush tells aides he doesn't want to "outsource" his role as commander in chief. Some Bush allies say this is a way to buy some time as the president tries to decide how to deal with rising pressure to alter his strategy in Iraq and hopes the critical media focus on the Iraq war will soften.

Friday, December 08, 2006

Ah, Adam Daifallah, the gift that keeps on giving. Or the cold sore that keeps on festering -- whatever works for you.

Here, everyone's favourite Canadian right-wing narcissist and fashion plate gets himself a man crush on a whole new, hunka hunka burnin' neo-conism as he quotes:

Mr. Giuliani also rejected the panel's recommendation that America tie the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict to stabilizing Iraq. When asked about this linkage on Mr. Prager's radio show, Mr. Giuliani said, "Israel and Palestine is an important issue. Sometimes it's used as an excuse to deal with underlying issues. But the reality here is that the Islamo-fundamentalist terrorists are at war with our way of life, with our modern world, with rights for women, religious freedom, societies that have religious freedom. And all of that would still exist, no matter what happens in Israel and Palestine."

Yes, by God, the Islamojihadifarians' war on rights for women, fer cryin' out loud! The very same rights for Canadian women that drove Adam to such overwhelming indifference back here.

Ah, well -- it's not the issue, it's the political mileage you can get out of it at the time, right, Adam?

Thursday, December 07, 2006

KIM LANDERS: The Iraq Study Group has been working on its report since April, speaking to 170 people.

But members went to Iraq only once, and only one of them ventured outside Baghdad's green zone.

Their report offers no hard timetable for a pullout of US troops from Iraq, but recommends combat forces could be withdrawn by early 2008.

And it has a clear message for the Iraqi Government: take prompt action to make substantial progress towards achieving milestones on national reconciliation, security and governance, or face the US withdrawing its political, military or economic support.

Leon Panetta is a member of the Iraq Study Group.

LEON PANETTA: If the Iraqis fail to implement the reforms, if they fail to get a handle on the violence, there's nothing the United States can do, militarily or otherwise, that can solve those problems. They have to assume the primary responsibility to govern themselves.

KIM LANDERS: Larry Diamond from the Hoover Institution agrees with the need to threaten US sanctions.

LARRY DIAMOND: So unless we put these conditions on the table, you have to make compromises, you have to assume responsibility. If we're going to continue to support this at the level we are, I don't think these compromises are going to happen. So I think this pressure is necessary to turn this situation around.

And it's about damned time. I mean, after illegally invading their country, bombing their infrastructure into bits of rubble and allowing anything of value to be looted out from under them, there's nothing like threatening a country in the midst of civil war with international sanctions if they don't stop fucking around and get their shit together.

If you want shocking stories of abuse of privilege by bureaucrats, the Ontario Auditor-General’s 2006 report is now available here at the official website.

True, it’s Ontario and not the federal government. But the rationale is pretty much the same: progressive critics always forget that spending more money on a social program does not guarantee that the program is successful. In fact, without checks or accountability measures, such programs will wind up being staffed by bureaucrats who can and will abuse their privileges.

The infamous report on the Children’s Aid societies? Available here in PDF format.

Tune in tomorrow when Phantom Observer suggests de-funding Childrens' Aid in its entirety. After all, it's just "advocacy." Jesus, those little fuckers suck up a lot of money, don't they?